Re: [PATCH] MIPS/GAS: Clean-up no-delay slot instruction annotation

[Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>]

"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com> writes:
>  The MIPS architecture defines a set of instructions that are not allowed 
> to be placed in a branch delay slot or unpredictable behaviour will 
> happen.  Additionally GAS deliberately does not reorder some other 
> instructions that are actually allowed in a branch delay slot, but their 
> intent is to trigger an exception under some circumstances and handling 
> such an exception, although architecturally supported, is sometimes 
> problematic if coming from a branch delay slot.
>
>  Currently we do not distinguish between the two cases and furthermore we 
> correctly annotate some instructions to keep them out of delay slots, we 
> annotate some instructions unnecessarily, and we fail to annotate some, 
> which we handle by checking their opcodes explicitly.  Ah, and we have 
> this honourable SYNC instruction that got awarded with its own flag for 
> this very purpose.
>
>  I believe this all is unnecessary.  We can do with a single flag, if set 
> correctly for all the affected instructions, and no explicit opcode 
> checks.  Here's a change that implements my idea.  I have renamed the 
> INSN_TRAP flag to INSN_NO_DELAY_SLOT, to reflect its meaning more 
> accurately.  I have kept the TRAP alias though for instructions that GAS 
> deliberately chooses not to schedule into delay slots even they are 
> otherwise permitted there.  I have added a new alias, NODS, for these 
> instructions that are truly forbidden there to make it easy to distinguish 
> between the two classes.  I have used the new flag for SYNC, the ERET and 
> DERET instructions that were checked explicitly and lacked any annotation, 
> and updated all the other instructions of this kind including, but not 
> limited to MIPS16 compact jumps.  I haven't added this flag to branches 
> that are already excluded implicitly by means of some obscure conditions 
> (like being relaxed or having a fixup attached); though frankly perhaps we 
> should use this flag on them too, to make it explicit they cannot be 
> scheduled into delay slots.  WDYT?

By including INSN_NO_DELAY_SLOT in UBD, etc?  Sounds like a good idea.
I like the way you've kept the TRAP vs. NODS distinction in the opcode
tables, so that the short macros give semantic information, and the
#defines map that information to flags.  On that basis, if property
X inherently stops the instruction being placed in a delay slot,
it seems better to include INSN_NO_DELAY_SLOT in the #define for
X than to add "|NODS" to each X entry.

Richard